Commentary
Some have tried to minimize the importance of the new Greenland agreement. After all, the 1951 agreement that was already in force allowed the United States to establish military bases as needed, and it was the United States that decided to radically reduce its military presence after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
All that is true, but the new agreement goes far beyond the 1951 agreement. First and foremost, it will prevent China from infiltrating Greenland, as it did in Panama, by giving the United States veto power over investments in Greenland by countries viewed as a threat to national security.
Furthermore, while the 1951 treaty granted broad authority to expand existing sites such as Pituffik Space Base, the 2026 pact establishes entirely new designated American sites and pairs them with new, explicit undersea transit rights within Greenland’s territorial waters for the United States.
It also formally codifies the U.S. right to deploy the “Golden Dome” defense shield, which could involve building many new installations across Greenland.
Other goals accomplished by the agreement include not only making it permanent but also mandating that, if Greenland decides to separate from Denmark, the main terms of the agreement remain in place, along with the requirement that Greenland remain part of NATO. Non-NATO countries will not be allowed to build any military or radar installations in any territory controlled by Greenland, a provision that the 1951 agreement lacked.
The agreement leaves Greenland an autonomous territory of Denmark. It does not explicitly give the United States exclusive economic development rights to Greenland’s vast natural resources, but it turns out that the countries excluded from investing in Greenland are also the primary countries with the resources to compete with U.S. companies that will want to partner with Greenlanders to turn its natural resource potential into actual opportunities and wealth.
This makes the agreement more significant than it might seem at first blush. Many are gleefully declaring that U.S. President Donald Trump did not get what he wanted—for example, Greenland is still independent—which shows they don’t really understand how the president operates.
Trump’s style embodies old-school negotiating principles pulled directly from the cutthroat world of New York real estate, seamlessly translated into international diplomacy. At its core, his approach relies on asking for the stars to get the moon, deploying a classic “hard man, soft man” routine, and using unpredictability to throw opponents off balance.
However, to truly understand how he operates on the world stage, one must see how he treats geopolitical treaties less like sacred alliances and more like corporate contracts. In his view, traditional diplomatic protocols are merely bureaucratic red tape to be bypassed by dealing directly with the “top man”—the head of state who actually holds the power to make a deal.
Trump normally operates under his core business principle of never appearing desperate and always being willing to walk away. By threatening to pull out of long-standing agreements—whether that means tearing up NAFTA to force the creation of the USMCA, abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, or threatening to leave NATO to compel European allies to pay their fair share—Trump keeps both his opponents and allies on pins and needles.
Believing multilateral deals often limit his ability to get the best deal, Trump prefers bilateral deals that allow both parties to maximize benefits more than typically possible with multiple parties.
Whether brokering the historic Abraham Accords, engaging in high-stakes summits with North Korea, or aggressively floating the purchase of Greenland, Trump approaches the global arena with a singular corporate mindset: Create overwhelming leverage, disrupt the status quo, and secure a tangible, high-profile victory for his country.
When all is said and done, the new Greenland agreement significantly enhances national security. And without Trump’s unconventional negotiating tactics, the new agreement would likely not have been as favorable to U.S. interests. It truly is a big win for America.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
